gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL misappropriation


From: RJack
Subject: Re: GPL misappropriation
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:51 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL

Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks like this
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php>: Copyright (c)
<YEAR>, <OWNER> All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
 A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
 HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY
WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity, include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution. Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of
 these conditions.

Why not write Congress and inform them that OSI has overuled the 1976
Copyright Act (as amended). I'm sure the federal courts will be very
receptive to that idea.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]